ArticleCommunications biology2018
A minimum information standard for reproducing bench-scale bacterial cell growth and productivity.
Article in Communications biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- From bacterial to microbiome-derived vesicles: genome-informed identity, source qualification, and translational quality for skin-directed cosmetics.Genes & genomics · 2026Review
- Standardizing Bacterial Extracellular Vesicle Purification: A Call for Consensus.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Review
- m6A modification is incorporated into bacterial mRNA without specific functional benefit.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- A FAIR-compliant parts catalogue for genome engineering and expression control inSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2022Article
- Applicability of Control Materials To Support Gene Promoter Characterization and Expression in Engineered Cells Using Digital PCR.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Single-cell measurement quality in bits.PloS one · 2022Article
- Method for reproducible automated bacterial cell culture and measurement.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Proteomic and Transcriptomic Analysis ofmSystems · 2021Article
- Genome-scale metabolic rewiring improves titers rates and yields of the non-native product indigoidine at scale.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Measurements drive progress in directed evolution for precise engineering of biological systems.Current opinion in systems biology · 2020Article
- Are synthetic biology standards applicable in everyday research practice?Microbial biotechnology · 2020Article
- A minimum information standard for reproducing bench-scale bacterial cell growth and productivity.Communications biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducing, exchanging, comparing, and building on each other's work is foundational to technological advances. Advancing biotechnology calls for reliable reuse of engineered organisms. Reliable reuse of engineered organisms requires reproducible growth and productivity. Here, we identify the experimental factors that have the greatest effect on the growth and productivity of our engineered organisms in order to demonstrate reproducibility for biotechnology. We present a draft of a Minimum Information Standard for Engineered Organism Experiments (MIEO) based on this method. We evaluate the effect of 22 factors on
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.